GenCon Threatens to Relocate

[UnfairBanana 2,251]

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2015/03/gen-con-threatens-to-relocate-if-religious-freedom-bill-passes/

 

Seems like I'm getting lots of my news through Facebook, these days.

Anyway, it looks like GenCon is threatening to relocate if the bill passes. Said bill would apparently allow businesses to refuse service to people based on their religious beliefs.

 

George Takei posted on his Facebook, "If it goes into effect, Indiana will be marked as a state where certain people are not welcome, and so we will not visit...And we will not attend events, including GenCon..."

 

Thoughts? Let's keep this a polite, mature discussion.

[All Shields Forward 1,917]

Well, if the state makes discrimination legal they can't get upset when others discriminate against them.

Though such a bill would not last long in Federal court.

[UnfairBanana 2,251]

I agree. I'm kinda wondering how such a thing was even passed.

'Merica isn't as free as she once was, it seems.

But good on you, GenCon, for doing the right thing.

[DoubleNot7 768]

So you advocate violating the freedom of religion of a business owner instead? It's a two edged sword. Let those on both sides of the coin do business with whom they choose. Not much "freedom" if you are forced to do something.

Gencon has moved before, no big deal.

[UnfairBanana 2,251]

So you advocate violating the freedom of religion of a business owner instead? It's a two edged sword. Let those on both sides of the coin do business with whom they choose. Not much "freedom" if you are forced to do something.

Gencon has moved before, no big deal.

I wouldn't support any religion that has to discriminate against other people when conducting day-to-day activities.

[Sithborg 11,644]

Well, if the state makes discrimination legal they can't get upset when others discriminate against them.

Though such a bill would not last long in Federal court.

 

The Federal version has been on the books since the mid 90's. I believe it has been through the Supreme Court as well. There is a general overreaction to these types of laws (MI is having one proposed as well). Granted, the State versions will end up being a bit more broadly applied. And not saying it is a good law either. But looking at the MI bill, the reaction of a paramedic being able to refuse giving lifesaving care to someone who is gay clearly fails the test established by the Federal law. 

[All Shields Forward 1,917]

So you advocate violating the freedom of religion of a business owner instead? It's a two edged sword. Let those on both sides of the coin do business with whom they choose. Not much "freedom" if you are forced to do something.

Gencon has moved before, no big deal.

So we have to protect business owners from discrimination by allowing them to practice discrimination?

It's not a two edged sword, just admit your bigotry.

Edited March 25, 2015 by All Shields Forward

[Babaganoosh 3,079]

My freedom to swing my arm ends at someone else's face. People have a right to not be publicly discriminated against that trumps the freedom of others to act on religious beliefs. Would we be having this conversation if it were Muslim shopowners refusing to serve Christians?

The freedom to hold religious beliefs is good. But there have to be limits on how you can apply those beliefs in the public sphere, because we share this planet and we need to get along. This is one of those cases.

[Verlaine 1,647]

My freedom to swing my arm ends at someone else's face. People have a right to not be publicly discriminated against that trumps the freedom of others to act on religious beliefs. Would we be having this conversation if it were Muslim shopowners refusing to serve Christians?

The freedom to hold religious beliefs is good. But there have to be limits on how you can apply those beliefs in the public sphere, because we share this planet and we need to get along. This is one of those cases.

And besides, I don't think such a law is really going to solve anything in your country. People typically want something like this because they feel threatened by modern advances and try to protect what they see as their lifestyle. I expect that emancipation of gays and lesbians will continue regardless of these laws, so I don't expect that the bill will really bring the gratification that these christians want. If they feel threatened by gay couples entering their stores, then they will feel threatened by other things in the future. Creating more and more legislation is not going to solve this.

[Robin Graves 6,054]

Whoever came up with that bill should be given the Iron Cross... and  then be taken out back and shot.

Wich r*tarded bigot came up with that nonsense anyway?

[treybert 893]

Just more reason to vote. Indiana's midterm turnout was 28%.

 

17 mins long, but worth a watch

[Sithborg 11,644]

Whoever came up with that bill should be given the Iron Cross... and  then be taken out back and shot.

Wich r*tarded bigot came up with that nonsense anyway?

 

Bill Clinton?

[Robin Graves 6,054]

At least you didn't say "Obama"

[Wayne Argabright 1,581]

yes hope it relocates someplace south...   besides what the heck is there to see in indy??  Orlando would be cool.   

[Sithborg 11,644]

(sigh, not eager to get into a politics discussion...)

 

Look, there is already a Federal verison of the law that is on the books. It was passed in the 90s. Granted, the reason that law was made was much different than the current State versions floating around legislatures at the moment. The Federal bill came about due to an outcry over some Native Americans getting busted for using peyote in some of their ceremonies. And the Supreme Court cut a lot of power out of the Federal law. But that doesn't change that something of this nature has been law for well over a decade.

 

Yes, the State versions are coming around as a pushback by religious conservatives. No, these are not great laws, especially since the State versions will likely be a bit more broader than the current Federal version. But the reactions to these laws are nearly as bad as the reasoning for writing these bills.

[All Shields Forward 1,917]

Source please.

[Sithborg 11,644]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

 

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/06/what-is-rfra-and-why-do-we-care/

 

I did my research when this came up with the MI version, and people were sharing an article about how the MI version would allow a doctor/paramedic from treating a gay person. Been a Federal for over 20 years now. Granted, I'm not overly confident of the Sherbert test being applied in a reasonable manner in a lot of these states, but the overreactions to these bills is harmful. 

[All Shields Forward 1,917]

Great thanks! I'm interested to see how they have been applying it Federally. I'll check them out after work.

[Vorpal Sword 14,685]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

 

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/06/what-is-rfra-and-why-do-we-care/

 

I did my research when this came up with the MI version, and people were sharing an article about how the MI version would allow a doctor/paramedic from treating a *** person. Been a Federal for over 20 years now. Granted, I'm not overly confident of the Sherbert test being applied in a reasonable manner in a lot of these states, but the overreactions to these bills is harmful.

Hobby Lobby v. Burwell is also relevant when talking about RFRA and its more recent clones popping up in state legislatures. Basically, the barn door is open in a way it wasn't in 2013: the right of Indianapolis businesses to refuse to provide goods or services to LGBTQ attendees at GenCon is, under the logic established in the Hobby Lobby decision, completely legal.

I think Hobby Lobby is why we keep seeing new religious-freedom laws show up: some state legislators are eager to push that boundary a bit further, if they can.

Back to the OP, though, I think it's both a just move and a smart one on the part of the convention.

[KnightShift 306]

This law grants conscientious objector status to business owners who do not want to be forced to provide services that would violate their religious principles.

 

Like it or not, there ARE people who do not believe in the concept of homosexual marriage.  Their stance is not violating the rights of anyone else.  But to demand and compel these people by force to provide a service that goes against their beliefs (e.g. a baker refusing to make a *** marriage weddingcake) is violating THEIR rights.

 

It cuts both ways.  Would a Moslem now be forced to be the photographer of a bar mitzvah?  Would a Jewish carpenter be made to build a creche for a church's Nativity scene?  Should a homosexual-owned catering outfit provide food for the nutcases at Westboro Baptist Church under penalty of law?

 

This is about the rights of the individual and like that or not, that MUST be respected.  No one is being denied their rights here.  A person is free to shop around with businesses to their hearts content.  But those businesses do NOT have to respect the desires of the prospective clients if those desires violate the business's ethics and standards.

Edited March 26, 2015 by KnightShift

[All Shields Forward 1,917]

Same false logic was used to justify why blacks and whites couldn't get married. It was a bigoted idea then too.

 

Seriously, take everything you've said and replace every reference to gays with blacks or Jews. Same ****** up logic.

[WonderWAAAGH 7,153]

So you advocate violating the freedom of religion of a business owner instead? It's a two edged sword. Let those on both sides of the coin do business with whom they choose. Not much "freedom" if you are forced to do something.

Gencon has moved before, no big deal.

 

Jesus, I thought we solved this in '64 after Heart of Atlanta vs. U.S. The 14th amendment was still a thing, the last time I checked.

 

"I guess black people are okay, but I'll be damned if I'm going to serve gays."

 

My freedom to swing my arm ends at someone else's face.

 

Probably one of the finest things that's ever been said by any justice, and that's saying something. It's a shame people don't understand that they don't have the freedom to infringe upon the rights of others, or that religion is not an appropriate shield for bigotry.

Edited March 26, 2015 by WonderWAAAGH

[KnightShift 306]

No rights are being infringed upon at the moment.  Except the rights of business owners who are forced to provide for something that is sincerely against their beliefs.

 

Ultimately this is something best left to the free market to decide.  Going back to our baker example: if said baker refuses to make a cake for a homosexual wedding, that is his right NOT to make that cake.  But everyone else has the right to choose whether to give that baker any more business.  Nobody is forcing anyone to use THAT particular baker.  Any person is free to shop around until he/she finds someone who may be willing to render that service.

 

And this has nothing to do with "civil rights" or violating what happened before the movements of the Fifties and the Sixties.  Those succeeded because of the momentum of its participants to change the hearts of people who still practiced racial discrimination.  They *never* forced those people into changing those practices.  The civil rights movement was already wildly succeeding before the government put its stamp of approval on it with the Civil Rights Acts.

 

So too, homosexual marriage is not and cannot be something that is enforced upon people.  Despite how many states issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples (which is something for discussion another day).  That still is not something that respect for can be enforced upon any person.  And the more that some DO try to compel the notion of homosexual marriage on those who do not beleive such a thing, the more that they serve *against* their own interests.  You can do what you can to change people's hearts.  That is how the civil rights movements overcame and won.  You can NOT force them to change their hearts.

 

That way lies a path which we do not want to find ourselves on.

[WonderWAAAGH 7,153]

What's against their beliefs? Homosexuality? A single passage in the bible that endorses their misguided, antiquated worldview? People have a right to that? I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that there are no biblical passages that endorse slavery, or we'd still be debating that one. Oh wait, it does...

I'm sorry, but I have zero respect for cherry picked spiritual beliefs. If your devotion runs deep enough that you're comfortable taking away the rights of others, you'd better be completely above reproach. Don't sit at home eating bacon when you take the day off work for Rosh Hashanah.

 

As for rights being infringed, they most certainly are. Perhaps you'd care to take a more thorough look at my previous post. Unless, of course, you can explain to me why discriminating against people for their sexual preference is different than discriminating against them for their color. I expect your legal justification will hold me in rapt attention.

Edited March 26, 2015 by WonderWAAAGH

[All Shields Forward 1,917]

So anti workplace discrimination laws were made for ***** and giggles? And sending in the National Guard to force desegregation in schools was for fun? Just because our society has (largely) changed, doesn't change the fact that it was one necessary (really it still is) to force the public to conform to desegregation through legal methods.

And I'm sorry, but the Civil rights act of 1964 DID force business owners to allow black people the same service as anyone else.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations")."

It may have been a popular movement, but it sure as hell wasn't popular in the areas it was intended for.

Maybe your baker shouldn't have gone into the business of serving the people if they have such issues. Kind off like how your muslim cook should have asked if handling pork was part of his job during the interview. Also you keep mentioning it, so, can you please provide the passage where making cakes for gays is mentioned specifically? Feel free to use the Torah and Quran if necessary. Cause I seem to remember some parts about love thy neighbor, do unto others, and let he who is without sin cast the first stone yadda yadda that seem to contradict the religion of you phantasms.

Also no one is demanding you change your heart. It's called tolerance, not acceptance. They just want to be treated with basic human dignity.

Edited March 26, 2015 by All Shields Forward